|
|
Post by babyhusker on Nov 20, 2024 15:19:25 GMT -5
Ah, I guess that would make sense if the MW is based in CO. These players/schools are suing the conference, not San Jose State specifically. suing for what? how are they going to make any argument, when they are suing 2 years after teh rule was made. wasn't the time to sue two years ago? In general, it doesn’t matter when a rule is put in place to be able to sue. To have standing to sue, you have to be able to prove injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. Basically that you were harmed, that the harm was caused by the rule, and that it can be remedied. A rule could be in place for fifty years without hurting anyone, and then something comes up and a lawsuit takes place. They probably weren’t able to sue before because they couldn’t prove harm to the extent they would have standing |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 20, 2024 15:29:09 GMT -5
suing for what? how are they going to make any argument, when they are suing 2 years after teh rule was made. wasn't the time to sue two years ago? In general, it doesn’t matter when a rule is put in place to be able to sue. To have standing to sue, you have to be able to prove injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. Basically that you were harmed, that the harm was caused by the rule, and that it can be remedied. A rule could be in place for fifty years without hurting anyone, and then something comes up and a lawsuit takes place. They probably weren’t able to sue before because they couldn’t prove harm to the extent they would have standing lol, so what harm was done? It was self-inflicted harm by not playing. they are going to argue they were harmed? the evidence is all the other schools played SJSU without harm. they can't show any harm. gonna lose on the law, & lose on the facts. yes, one fact they can point out is the TG has an X and a Y chromosone! so I guess the judge then asks the plaintaff to point to the rulebook that shows where X & Y chromosone are listed? and then their response will be what? that they didn't read the rule book? that the rule should be changed? it's a political stunt lawsuit |
|
|
|
Post by babyhusker on Nov 20, 2024 15:34:21 GMT -5
In general, it doesn’t matter when a rule is put in place to be able to sue. To have standing to sue, you have to be able to prove injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. Basically that you were harmed, that the harm was caused by the rule, and that it can be remedied. A rule could be in place for fifty years without hurting anyone, and then something comes up and a lawsuit takes place. They probably weren’t able to sue before because they couldn’t prove harm to the extent they would have standing lol, so what harm was done? It was self-inflicted harm by not playing. they are going to argue they were harmed? the evidence is all the other schools played SJSU without harm. they can't show any harm. gonna lose on the law, & lose on the facts. yes, one fact they can point out is the TG has an X and a Y chromosone! so I guess the judge then asks the plaintaff to point to the rulebook that shows where X & Y chromosone are listed? and then their response will be what? that they didn't read the rule book? that the rule should be changed? it's a political stunt lawsuit I’m not talking about the facts of the lawsuit. You had asked why wait two years, and that was the answer. They couldn’t have brought it forth when it was only a hypothetical issue, the rule had to be applied. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 20, 2024 16:20:17 GMT -5
lol, so what harm was done? It was self-inflicted harm by not playing. they are going to argue they were harmed? the evidence is all the other schools played SJSU without harm. they can't show any harm. gonna lose on the law, & lose on the facts. yes, one fact they can point out is the TG has an X and a Y chromosone! so I guess the judge then asks the plaintaff to point to the rulebook that shows where X & Y chromosone are listed? and then their response will be what? that they didn't read the rule book? that the rule should be changed? it's a political stunt lawsuit I’m not talking about the facts of the lawsuit. You had asked why wait two years, and that was the answer. They couldn’t have brought it forth when it was only a hypothetical issue, the rule had to be applied. the rule was applied, way back when it was implemented. IT's been applied for a long time. in fact Boise, Utah State, Nevada, etc. have never even challenged the rule. they know about the rule for as long as it's been a rule they are simply discriminating against one TG person. that's it. it's not a safety issue, and they know it. they could be playing against a TG that is on Fresno or SDSU or Air Force. |
|
|
|
Post by babyhusker on Nov 20, 2024 16:37:13 GMT -5
I’m not talking about the facts of the lawsuit. You had asked why wait two years, and that was the answer. They couldn’t have brought it forth when it was only a hypothetical issue, the rule had to be applied. the rule was applied, way back when it was implemented. IT's been applied for a long time. in fact Boise, Utah State, Nevada, etc. have never even challenged the rule. they know about the rule for as long as it's been a rule they are simply discriminating against one TG person. that's it. it's not a safety issue, and they know it. they could be playing against a TG that is on Fresno or SDSU or Air Force. There aren’t proven TG people on those teams though. That’s exactly what I’m saying. I agree completely this is political, but that doesn’t change the fact that they had no grounds to challenge it before |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 20, 2024 17:43:57 GMT -5
the rule was applied, way back when it was implemented. IT's been applied for a long time. in fact Boise, Utah State, Nevada, etc. have never even challenged the rule. they know about the rule for as long as it's been a rule they are simply discriminating against one TG person. that's it. it's not a safety issue, and they know it. they could be playing against a TG that is on Fresno or SDSU or Air Force. There aren’t proven TG people on those teams though. That’s exactly what I’m saying. I agree completely this is political, but that doesn’t change the fact that they had no grounds to challenge it before of course they had grounds. they could ahve been playting TGs and not knowing it, which would be even worse! the rules didn't require TGs to be disclosed. So why didn't they challenge the rule so that they would prevent exposure to all this 'harm' and 'non-fair' playing field. again, they are discriminating against a person, they don't and haven't even cared about the rule or about safety or about fair play. there are all easy positions on theirs to refute. that they knew of a TG or didn't, it's on them. the swimming situation made that clear. They KNEW ahead of this, ignorance is no excuse |
|
|
|
Post by dd2000 on Nov 20, 2024 19:13:21 GMT -5
I've heard the "on hormones before the onset of puberty, vs on hormones after the onset of puberty" discussions. Is there a rule in the NCAA regarding this nuance, and is it even widely accepted as a guideline in the NCAA?
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 20, 2024 20:36:28 GMT -5
I've heard the "on hormones before the onset of puberty, vs on hormones after the onset of puberty" discussions. Is there a rule in the NCAA regarding this nuance, and is it even widely accepted as a guideline in the NCAA? That’s the rule for international swimming and international track and field. It’s not the rule for NCAA. Just that the athlete has been on hormones for a year and has a sufficiently low testosterone level. |
|
|
|
Post by RoxasNobody on Nov 20, 2024 21:38:55 GMT -5
I've heard the "on hormones before the onset of puberty, vs on hormones after the onset of puberty" discussions. Is there a rule in the NCAA regarding this nuance, and is it even widely accepted as a guideline in the NCAA? That’s the rule for international swimming and international track and field. It’s not the rule for NCAA. Just that the athlete has been on hormones for a year and has a sufficiently low testosterone level. Also, that standard was set by USA Volleyball. The NCAA has simply agreed to adopt it as their rule for volleyball as well. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 23, 2024 15:14:15 GMT -5
Utah State and Colorado State are tied 1-1. I believe the winner of this match clinches #1 seed in the MWC tournament. Colorado State will be top 2 regardless and get a bye. Utah State could end up as low as 4th?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 23, 2024 15:25:35 GMT -5
I've heard the "on hormones before the onset of puberty, vs on hormones after the onset of puberty" discussions. Is there a rule in the NCAA regarding this nuance, and is it even widely accepted as a guideline in the NCAA? No, the NCAA rules are fairly clear. 1) Follow the rules set by the Olympic Movement on a sport-by-sport basis. 2) Also meet the requirements set by the NCAA in 2010. The 2010 policy requires that M -> F transgender athletes must be on androgen suppression for at least a year before eligibility. They do not specify starting before puberty. Some Olympic Movement sporting authorities do require starting before puberty. Fairly notoriously, FINA (swimming) requires starting before age 11, even though they say they do not want anyone to start before age 11, meaning they intentionally set a policy that effectively bans all M -> F transgender athletes while pretending not to. |
|
|
|
Post by speegs13 on Nov 23, 2024 16:23:09 GMT -5
CSU wins 3-1 and gets the #1 seed.
I think the bracket will shape out as:
#1 Colorado State vs. #4 Fresno State/#5 San Diego State
#2 San Jose State vs. #3 Utah State/#6 Boise State
Not 100% sure who is #2 between SJSU and USU, but by my math it should be SJSU
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 23, 2024 16:48:56 GMT -5
CSU wins 3-1 and gets the #1 seed. I think the bracket will shape out as: #1 Colorado State vs. #4 Fresno State/#5 San Diego State #2 San Jose State vs. #3 Utah State/#6 Boise State Not 100% sure who is #2 between SJSU and USU, but by my math it should be SJSU I am all about the popcorn and drama if two teams that have been boycotting SJSU are scheduled to play each other for the right to advance to play SJSU. |
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Nov 23, 2024 16:59:35 GMT -5
CSU wins 3-1 and gets the #1 seed. I think the bracket will shape out as: #1 Colorado State vs. #4 Fresno State/#5 San Diego State #2 San Jose State vs. #3 Utah State/#6 Boise State Not 100% sure who is #2 between SJSU and USU, but by my math it should be SJSU I am all about the popcorn and drama if two teams that have been boycotting SJSU are scheduled to play each other for the right to advance to play SJSU. When is this match and how can I watch it? |
|
|
|
Post by speegs13 on Nov 23, 2024 17:06:04 GMT -5
I am all about the popcorn and drama if two teams that have been boycotting SJSU are scheduled to play each other for the right to advance to play SJSU. When is this match and how can I watch it? IF this is the matchup, Utah State/Boise State will be at 4PM PT on Wed. 11/27. Winner plays (theoretically lol) SJSU at 4PM PT on Friday 11/29 Links to tournament central: themw.com/wvballchamp/ |
|
